Dan's Comments

Listen to 'Shut Up, Weirdo' for 11/6/09

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:16:50 -0500

Listen to 'Shut Up, Weirdo' for 11/6/09:

jhnbrssndn:

frangry:

Topic: What would you do if you were a member of the opposite sex for a day?

Is this a trick question?

Same thing we do every day, Frangry. Try to take over the world.

jgh: tanya77: alanfm78: Seems like it wasn’t too long ago we...

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:43:10 -0500

jgh:

tanya77:

alanfm78:

Seems like it wasn’t too long ago we were striking over this technology that “was years and years” away from becoming a reality. Yea.

Click above to read on.

Big, Major FU to the Theater Owners.

I don’t know anything about this issue so please educate me. What is wrong with releasing movies straight-to-TV (an OnDemand type service, I am assuming?) Yes, it would be put theaters out of business, but is there something wrong with providing consumers more options? Getting the movies at home sounds pretty convenient to me. Not asking rhetorically, as I know I am not seeing the whole picture. Please explain. What is the argument of the theater owners?

I believe the theater owner’s arguments are roughly the same as the Michigan Newspapers who were horrified at the idea that towns would post notices online. I think the argument goes something like: We like money. And we’re scared we’re obsolete.

Gay Stuff

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:18:42 -0500

jasencomstock:

OK! so we are like 0 for 30 on the ballot referendums. Most of the losses were in 2004, we have Prop 8 in California and 1 in Maine. The prop 8 mess, if you recall, first we blamed all the African-American voters, then it turned out that the team sucked ass and did a really bad job. So everyone was like, “well we did a crappy job on prop. 8, we could have won it.” Well now in Maine, as far as I can tell, the No on 1 campaign worked their ass off, had ample resources, and we still lost by 5-6%.

I would like to read or hear a good lessons learned debate on this, but apparently we do not have a winning message or method.

Now some gay activists (who are usually just shit throwers) think Obama/HRC &c. are to blame. I don’t think Obama helped Corzine or Deeds.

Should the pro gay marriage ads not be about attempting to appeal to fairness or family love being gay and straight? If not, what should the message be? No on 1 supposedly had a top notch GOTV effort, was it the off year nature that doomed us? and if so, if we run a ballot initiative overturning gay marriage bans in target states like California and Michigan, would we be successful?

Being the CEO of Gay, I want options, not questions, pontifications or worse- problems. What should we do?

Keep trying.

Look at the margins in the 30 losses. Lately, they’ve been really close. And as some states have allowed gay marriage and appear to still be on the map, maybe some of the “end of civilization” rhetoric will tone down.

Additionally, watch the rhetoric of the opposing side. Lately it’s been about the children. In other words, straight out discrimination doesn’t have the political clout it used to.

I love me some Obama, but this IS bad. I need to know more.

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:15:14 -0500

robot-heart-politics:

needtherapy:

Secret copyright treaty leaks. It’s bad. Very bad. - Boing Boing

I’m trying to reserve judgment, but I’m not sure how this is defensible.

The internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secret copyright treaty whose text Obama’s administration refused to disclose due to “national security” concerns, has leaked. It’s bad. It says:

That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn’t infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.

That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet — and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living — if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.

That the whole world must adopt US-style “notice-and-takedown” rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused — again, without evidence or trial — of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.

Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM)

Hopefully everybody’s clear all the measures listed here (when not misconstrued) are consistent with current U.S. law?

jgh: WHY DON’T I HAVE A PC OR XBOX TO PLAY THIS...

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:41:23 -0500

jgh:

WHY DON’T I HAVE A PC OR XBOX TO PLAY THIS GAME

FFFUFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Please don’t bring this game to my attention. If I don’t know about it, it can’t take over my life for a week or so.

jhnbrssndn: ericmortensen: lizlet: ericmortensen: mikehudack:...

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:36:22 -0500

jhnbrssndn:

ericmortensen:

lizlet:

ericmortensen:

mikehudack:

ericmortensen:

Enjoy it America. This is what you get instead of universal health care.

Really? We don’t get universal health care because we build amphibious assault ships? I don’t think that’s fair. Not at all.

It’s entirely fair. And it’s not just about money. It’s also about political will. Health care would be nifty, but warships are required! Health care must be deficit neutral but killing machines can cost whatever is “necessary”. Catching up to the rest of the world’s health care is “risky” but fighting hypocritical never-ending, unwinnable wars that foster anti-American sentiment is never even questioned.

We don’t get universal health care because we’ve been convinced that perpetual war is “American” and taking care of each other is “communist.” Our priorities are seriously screwed up. And that’s why we get warships (and prisons and banker bailouts) instead of health care.

In addendum to this, I personally find the concept of making a warship out of the WTC both morbid and disturbing. Not to be totally hippie-dippy or anything.

Why settle for a metaphor for the endless cycle of violence, when you can have a literal representation?

I’m for universal health-care and all, but that’s one sweet-ass amphibious assault ship. I may re-examine my priorities. After all, why settle for a metaphor for the endless cycle of violence when we can have a literal representation?

Think of it as the world’s most dangerous bit of performance art.

Epic sweeping gender generalizations, I am full of them today!

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:22:06 -0500

(via jgh)

‘Cause you’re a woman.

"Furthermore, the people who are spending the most to care for their pets are not the ones abandoning..."

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:50:39 -0500

“Furthermore, the people who are spending the most to care for their pets are not the ones abandoning them, so I suspect those who would most benefit from a tax break for pet care (me) are those in a position to spend a lot on their pets and have a sufficient cushion that they can spend the money on pets and get some of it back when April rolls around. Until we’re a bit less conflicted on animal welfare, I’m happy to let responsible pet ownership be a largely private virtue.”

- Squashed

The arguments about what kinds of people do and don’t abandon their pets really doesn’t hold up under closer scrutiny, although stereotyping is a super fun way of justifying an argument! People who wouldn’t normally abandon their pets (at a shelter, on the side of the road, in their former home) are doing so now because of unusual financial duress.

If you think we should simply raise taxes and put that money toward animal control and shelters, you still are raising taxes on non-pet owners in order to relieve the financial responsibilities of, for the most part, pet owners. You also are ignoring the fact that the overhead of running a shelter or keeping animal control going is far more than people simply taking care of their pets in-home, i.e. you’d need to raise taxes more to pay for the shelters than you would lose tax revenue by giving people a break. At least you’re still arguing to do something about it, though, instead of just shrugging your shoulders, saying “not my problem,” and moving on. (Which is essentially what Jeff is advocating.)

And I’m not really sure what general somewhat permissible animal cruelty has to do with looking the other way as more of it happens, but.

(via robot-heart-politics)

I was actually taking a much more less sympathetic position than Jeff. I wasn’t proposing funding for shelters. I was proposing funding for euthanasia clinics. Less euphemistically, I was proposing raising taxes to kill puppies.

The pet abandonment problem is really, really sad. And if I had infinite money, I would love to do something about it. But there are a lot of problems I would like to fix. But there is a lot of unnecessary suffering. And think the government should work to alleviate human suffering first. And if we’re looking at alleviating animals’ suffering, we’ve got to seriously think about how and why we distinguish between pet animals and food animals.

SLUTTY WALMART GREETER.

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:40:40 -0400

jgh:

THAT WOULD BE THE MAGNUM OPUS OF “SLUTTY” COSTUMES.

Slutty slut-shamer. It’s a fine line to walk—but if you can pull it off, you revel in sexy, sexy hypocrisy.

A U Mich undergrad is reportedly going as a sexy Charles Darwin.

The Point I Should Have Made

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:33:50 -0400

jeffmiller:

southpol:

“The University of Central Florida, where Jordan is a freshman basketball player, has a $1.9 million contract with Adidas that requires all Golden Knight athletes to wear its shoes and apparel. That includes Jordan, son of Nike icon Michael Jordan.”

—

Marcus Jordan needs to get with the Central Florida and wear Adidas, not Nike — chicagotribune.com

Forget the controversy over Jordan. The shocking part of the story is that Adidas is paying $1.9 million to the University of Central Florida so that the team will wear Adidas shoes and apparel. This isn’t UCLA, or Duke, or Indiana. This isn’t the University of Florida. It’s the University of Central Florida.

There is an insane amount of money available in the shoe industry.

(via jeffmiller)

And an insane amount of money available to NCAA programs on the backs of talented kids who don’t get paid.

CBS pays the NCAA $545 billion to broadcast their basketball games. Per year. And let’s not even start on football…

Southpol makes exactly the point I should have made. As a good libertarian, I don’t care if private schools offer scholarships to athletes with the proviso that they don’t accept money for their play. But when public schools do this, we’re all complicit in the deal. Because these schools are established by the exercise of government power, denying athletes their market value is exploitation. And for the most part, it’s exploitation of an economically-vulnerable class. In light of the disproportionate racial composition of some of our most popular sports, this exploitation feels more than a little like racism. I don’t mean to suggest that this racism was ever intended by those who set up this system. But I wonder whether our indifference to the fairness of the arrangement has anything to do with race.

As I think more about this, I don’t think our indifference is a reflection of racism. It’s a reflection, I think, of ageism. We largely don’t care about the young. We let them fight our wars; we make them pay our debts. And we make them play games for our amusement.

Some of those numbers are wrong, right? The annual cost of the NCAA broadcast rights can’t be roughly on par with the Iraq War, can it?

College athletics is a complex enough topic that I’ll leave it aside. I’m happy enough to see billions of dollars going to education.

Surely I am the only one whose parent refuses to get a checking or savings account, right?

Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:46:24 -0400

(via jgh)

Anxiety about banks probably started the day they invented banks. But…yeah. You may be the only one.

I don't mean to write about this to start drama or as a sympathy ploy.

Sun, 18 Oct 2009 23:19:36 -0400

jgh:

I am just thinking out loud. How do you fix your radar/spider-sense/judgment when you know it is lacking? If your dude-compass isn’t correct, how do you make it right?

I don’t actually have a real solution for that one … but if you ever find yourself thinking “I’m the only one who understands him,” that should be a clue to get out. You’re probably the only one who doesn’t understand him. Other triggers are, “My love will change him,” or “He hits me because he loves me.”

"Anyone who can lay out an iPhone along with its recent competitors (never mind those previous..."

Sun, 04 Oct 2009 21:17:17 -0400

“Anyone who can lay out an iPhone along with its recent competitors (never mind those previous generations of lame “iPhone-Killers” they presented in 2007 and again in 2008) and say with a straight face that the only advantage Apple has is its ability to make things look nice should be in politics (perhaps AM Radio), not blogging about technology.”

- The ‘Apple Backlash’ Myth

This article is so poorly copy-edited that I think I might be the only person who has read it. But it makes some great points.

(via marco)

Are you worried about the growing Marco.org backlash? After all, if something does pretty well for a while, there has to be a backlash, right?

Also, your rhetorical question about the doctor:

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:17:10 -0400

jgh:

I don’t care what reasons a doctor is being a doctor for, as long as he DOES A GOOD JOB. As long as he knows what he’s doing, he could be a doctor because he thinks body parts are cool looking for all I care.

Most people do their jobs for the money, not because of the special feelings it gives them in their tummies when they feel ~* so fulfilled *~.

Whether or not you view alternative certification as inferior, it is viewed as a way to “know what you’re doing.”

Incidentally, NPR did a thing today about a 5-year teaching college that had determined that students should get a regular BA for the first four years in something they want to teach and spend the last year doing the actual teaching. That seemed to work a whole lot better than some of the other teaching colleges that might or might not have been accredited. Math teachers with math degrees tended to do a lot better than math teachers with education degrees.

"[Deleted post involving lawschool maybe making you evil.]"

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:32:25 -0400

“[Deleted post involving lawschool maybe making you evil.]”

- jgh: If I’m defensive,

It’s not strictly true, though it’s not strictly wrong either. A lot of law students forget that there is a difference between what is right and what is legal. Or perhaps they simply think that the “what is right” question is somebody else’s problem. But I don’t see this as law school’s fault. I think it’s the fault of law students who are sometimes idiots. And the law, like any system, has a few nasty structural problems—but if you have a background in any critical field, you should be able to spot them pretty easily.

I suppose there are a few cultural problems in the law. Lawyers are often more prone than others to equate money with value. And then there’s the whole rampant alcoholism thing.

I strive to live life...

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:54:45 -0400

…so that, when the revolution comes, I’ll be in the second group sent against the wall. The first group might sort of deserve it. And the third group won’t even be worth executing—but a habit’s a habit.

The real visionaries will be in the second group. They were the ones who got in trouble for criticizing the execution of the first group. They’ll be the first to realize the revolution had derailed.

We’ll be the people you’ll all regret killing.

And there goes the public option

Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:38:54 -0400

And there goes the public option:

fek:

soupsoup:

(via squashed)

Wrong.

This was Schumer’s public option amendment that failed; it was more or less a weather balloon for the Senate vote. It picked up votes over Rockefeller’s. They picked up two votes between the two amendments, and both Schumer and Rockefeller are going to “band together” to push the press line that the math on this makes the chances for hitting 60 on the Senate vote look even better. Which is probably bullshit, but: whatever.

Anyway: #BloggerFAIL. Headline: “Schumer’s public option amendment goes down.” Interpretation: “And there goes the public option”. I’ve done far worse, but still, that’s a reaction for you. See: Zuckerburg, Mark.

I’m aware of all the things you listed—and I’m sure Schumer and Rockefeller will push the line that the two votes gained over Rockefeller’s will make it viable in the whole senate. I think they’ll fail. I’d offer to up to put a bet on it, if I didn’t hope I was wrong. But I think I’m right.

Health insurance companies are exempt from the Sherman Antitrust Act

Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:59:31 -0400

Health insurance companies are exempt from the Sherman Antitrust Act:

jayparkinsonmd:

And the best solution Washington can come up with is mandating that we all purchase products from a private industry that is exempt from the first Federal statute to limit cartels and monopolies, and today still forms the basis for most antitrust litigation by the United States federal government.

I’m not a lawyer, but are federal health insurance mandates constitutional, especially when the private companies we’re forced to purchase from have federal protection from being a monopoly?

“Constitutional” is sort of a slippery issue. There are two questions in it. First does Congress have the power to pass this law. Most things are permitted, so long as they touch on interstate commerce. And so long as you’re not creating criminal penalties (as opposed to tax penalties) for defying that mandate, you can probably slip it through as a tax.

The second inquiry is whether it is prohibited. I don’t see why it would be. It doesn’t run afoul of any of the amendments.

Of course, being constitutional is not the same thing as being a good idea.

"I really don’t understand the value of looking at unemployment statistics…get out there and do..."

Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:04:45 -0400

“I really don’t understand the value of looking at unemployment statistics…get out there and do something. There is money to be made. Find some friends, get some ideas going and start a business. We’re young, smart and willing to work. We don’t all need someone to hand us a job. Create your own. I feel like America has lost some of her entrepreneurial spirit the last couple of decades.”

- motionsensorsoundtrack

I think the numbers here are worth noticing. If unemployment in a population is over 50%, something is seriously broken. If unemployment in that group were under 10% the “just get a job” solution would make a lot of sense. But at 50%, it seems that a majority are unable to have a job. Something is seriously not working.

You mentioned possibly having a government incentive for small businesses to create jobs. That’s not a bad idea—particularly if you like government involvement in business. And you’re definitely right that much of the stimulus effort has focussed on people who have longer employment records.

NYC is not helpful.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:28:33 -0400

jgh:

hurricane-k:

jgh:

I just got approached by a producer about doing a reality show for the CW about ‘professional women with a secret.’

LOLOL

WHAT IS YOUR SECRET, JGH?

I DON’T KNOW

IF I TOLD YOU IT WOULDN’T BE A SECRET! AND IF I WENT ON THAT REALITY SHOW FOR PROFESSIONAL WOMEN WITH A SECRET, EVERYBODY WOULD GUESS MY SECRET.